The switch in positions by Chief Justice Roberts, as well as the tortured logic used to rationalize a penalty as a tax bodes poorly for the legal and judicial systems. Clearly, Mr. Roberts faced extreme lobbying efforts by the media supporting President Obama, as well as from the bully pulpit of the presidency, and Mr. Roberts caved in. Recall also the public lambasting in Mr. Obama's most recent State of the Union address. Chief Justice Roberts seems to have abdicated his position as defender of the court's integrity and succumb to the pressure. The independence of the Supreme Court is now suspect.

Controversial cases are, most often, the ones that make it to the Court. One expects that the independence afforded justices by lifetime tenure would immunize them from pressure. In this particular case, Mr. Roberts behaved in contradiction to his long-held beliefs about the role of government relative to the citizenry.

Some have noted that the individual mandate is like auto insurance, but the apparent similarity actually points up the substantive distinction. One can elect to drive a vehicle and assume the fiscal and legal obligations. No one opting out of owning and driving a vehicle is compelled to buy insurance. Yet, with Obamacare, everyone pays, even if you do not want or need the provisions.

The legislation in question was repeatedly touted as not a tax. Yet, Mr. Roberts, supposedly deferring to the legislative process, substituted his own interpretation rather than forcing the Congress to clean up the provisions surrounding the funding. If it was a tax, then the Court could not have heard the motions until the act went into effect and someone was harmed by it.

The Economist's editorial stance seems to be quite at variance with the prevailing sentiment in the American public. Even after the legislation was approved by the Supreme Court, the preference of the electorate is that the Act be repealed for many reasons, including the huge increase in medical costs it will entail, the reduction of medical services that will occur, and the massive increase in public debt the act requires. The final straw seems to be be that the law is still unknown, especially with regard to the enormous number of regulations that remain to be written by unelected boards and agencies.

Most Americans, based on numerous polling companies, do not wish to become like Great Britain with their socialized medical system. I am one of those persons.

Funny how when it became the law that everyone had to have car insurance, no one threw a hissy fit, but when the Affordable Care Act appeared on the table, the GOP got their collective panties ruffled. People like Boehner, McConnel, and that other guy should be thrown out of office and replaced by this guy: http://youtu.be/zHteSbrZZ5U

It is amazing that when Romney and other Republican "leaders" state publicly that Obamacare should be repealed that no reporters ever ask what their alternative will be to offer hope and assistance to the 50 million Americans who can not afford medical insurance or have a pre-existing condition that will kill them shortly. Perhaps they would like these people and their family members to go away quietly and find a dark corner to die and not bother the wealthy Americans who are happy with the status quo. I also wonder why religious leaders in the US have not come out and said a word of support for Obamacare or any other plan that will aid those most in need.

"SIR, SS and Medicare are funded from retirees own money, contributed from their paychecks when they were working - THIS IS NOT YOUR TAX DOLLAR."
Well, no. Medicare and SS are paygo systems that transfer wealth from workers to non-workers. It has to be that way. You can't stick bread in a time capsule to be opened up 30 years later and eaten in retirement. Not even a house will last that long without significant maintenance. Your consumables largely must be produced more or less on demand shortly before the time you need them. All retirees can do is trade present labor now for a promise of present labor from someone else later. Social security and Medicare provide a framework to let them do that.
The "trust fund" is a farce. This is money the government owes to itself. When the bill comes due, exactly who is going to pay it?

The amount of money virtually all retires pay into the system over a life time of work is used up in a few years.

After that time, every penny they get is from current working folk.

Considering the cost of medical care today this should be obvious to anyone who knows basic match, especially since seniors are the biggest consumers of extremely expensive medical care which easily can cost into the millions in a few short years. Should that care include covering something like a heart attack it will exceed that amount in a year - and that amount is well and above what most people pay into SS and Medicare in a life time.

It's truly sad that in this supposedly richest nation in the world, basic health care for sick & the needy, is still hotly opposed by greedy, selfish & self-absorbed vested interest lobbies on the spurious & imbecelic pretext of 'government control'. The tragedy is they have the blind support of a vast crossection of misguided & infantile rightwing populace, who have everything to gain & only their vacuous delusions to lose, by supporting Obamacare.

Now that the SC has judged that Obamacare is only consitutional if the mandate is a tax and given that the word "tax" appears nowhere in the 2700-page law, surely the problem can't be fixed be simply going back and inserting the word "tax" at various points in the text. Or even by adding riders to that effect. If it is a new tax won't congress have to vote on it? If so, what are the chances of that happening anytime soon? It looks as if the chief justice has handed down a time-bomb.

What happens when the individuals that work and carry the weight for everyone, decide they want a free ride too?????? The lazy and unmotivated keep getting encouraged to stay in their current situation and not seek a better life for themselves. And, if you cant afford a kid please dont have one, just because you can reproduce does not mean you should.

Have you been paying attention? "Free ride"? Who said anything about a free ride? Its not free.

And I'm not too worried about all the hard working people out there suddenly rushing out to sign up for a government option which provides only a federally mandated level of "minimum coverage" (like driving a fancy car with only liability insurance).

It is up to the person to either pay penalised tax levi or health insurance. This is close to what other rich countries have been doing and it does not affect the efficiency of the country. On the other hand, the general well-being of the country does largely affect the efficiency. So if there are 5 million people in America are not covered to health insurance and 30% of them are sick, 1.5 million people won't be able to work.

Q: "What happens when the individuals that work and carry the weight for everyone, decide they want a free ride too?????? "

A: They will try living on welfare and unemployment, get kicked off the roles after a few years when benefits run out and then starve.

Honestly now, if it really is so grand to be a dead weight, I invite all our Republican associates here to demand the justice they clearly believe they are missing out on, and live off the public larder. I'll keep paying my taxes so you can eat. Enjoy!

What is basic function of Government ?
To supply Education , Health Care , Working Environment , Public Infrastructure , Legal Eco System on an really affordable and universal basis .
Lately , some of areas in America has gone against above principle .
See the state of affair of public transport system . Same is true for Public Health System.
Lately countries like Taiwan is providing quality healthcare at one third cost of USA as Japan is able to provide public transport system at one fifth cost .
For reduction of Health Care System ,We should benchmark our system against countries like Taiwan or Japan .As lately American Companies adopted Lean Manufacturing in Manufacturing space and now they are very successfully marketing their produce in countries like China.
( GM Motors)
Solution doesn't lie ,in raising taxes . This would be Short cut .
Solution lies in removing the wastage from our existing delivery system.
In India ,If clinic like AIIMS , Arvind Netralaya can provide world class treatment at five dollars per person why can't in Us at 50 dollars ?
We should review and try to innovate ,rather go for taxing etc.

As a student I researched healthcare models around the world, and would agree with the comment above. Taiwanese pay more in taxes but receive superior care. There out of pocket cost after taxes is zero. A medicare for all would be the best option for the United States.

And how much value one puts on less stress, and anxieties - knowing that, in case of unexpected catastrophic illness, neither the Taiwanese, nor the German, French, Japanese, and other advanced countries, will lose his / her lifetime savings, or worse - forced to sell their homes to pay for a surgery and 3 day stay in hospital.
Unfortunately as anything else. In US everything is measured in Dollars & cents.
Much like a senior Canadian Administrator had said - comparing the HC system between US and Canada.
"Our business is HealthCare, and the mission is to maximize the number of our citizen stay healthy.
In US, HC is a business, designed to maximize corporate profit and shareholder value.

I couldn't agree more with your comments. And when that benchmark study of healthcare is performed, I suspect that an emphasis on preventive care vs. remedial treatments will come up high on the list, and right up there with it will be a recommendation to remove for profit insurers from the system who take 15-25% off the top and add no value to the system.

But any claim that the court’s Republican appointees will stop at nothing to impose their conservative agenda now seems ludicrous in the light of the chief justice’s vote.

Really?

In his opening opinion the Justice sides with Justice Scalia, et al in dismissing the Commerce Clause argument.

By instead ruling it as permissible under tax powers he secures two outcomes, both partisan.

One, utilitarian. He saves his courts standing by avoiding further validation of (polled) majority public opinion that, as per the other constitutional branches, far from being aloof, it is influenced by and divided along partisan lines, with a sop to Conservatives by envoking their opprobrium towards new Taxes.

Second, he validates the new age Conservative constitutional argument of limited government, negating previous Commerce Clause rulings and precedent, by redefining Congresses regulatory powers under such as more limited than previously held.

Its a judicial Jedi mind trick. He both validates the newly minted States Rights constitutionalism and avoids trashing the courts standing any further.

The bottom line is that Americans did not plan for their living to the average life expendency of 83 years. They have under saved and under planned, expecting the government to supply them with whatever they need. Unfortunately, this entitlement has two important possibilities. The government runs out of money and people are invited to 'end it all now'. In days gone by, people were sent to debtors prison and governments fell or adopted a technocratic form of government that made life very unpleasant. There are a number of examples of this around the world with the most well known being N Korea.
Most reject euthanasiia and quite rightly so. But when health care becomes impossibly expensive, and many think the time has arrived, there may be calls for permitting it to take place.
In case Americans think there is lots of liquidity to support the proposed medical services for thos who cannot afford it, there are estimates by responsible folk that the US debt liabilities are over $60 trillion. Meaning that someone is dreaming if they, at the age of 50 even, can expect there will be enough money to go around for their care by the time they get to 75. Entitlements are wonderful concepts if you can afford them. Suggested reading:www.usdebtclock.org. Michael

Universal health care for all U.S.A. citizens is the only method to ensure people retain and are aware of what level of health that is expected of them by the state.
What we are at loss about is the level of health care that is being offered by this Obama Care legislation?
Nobody can expect any health plan to pick up the tab on all of the health problems that an individual may confront. The plan would either go broke or the premiums would be non payable. So we would like to see some debate on what this health care plan calls basic health care and or what it is proposing to cover.

They cannot! Governments and their institutions have been going further and further into debt, hoping that reality will never present itself. Well we realising now that health care in its present form cannot financially sustain itself, especially with the boomer bubble and longer life expectancy.
Doctors and the support staff have to make less. Management has to be cut back, many are self serving. Companies who provide services for hospitals from construction, maintenance and products charge WAY TO MUCH, because they can.
Understand, before the system comes crumbling down.
If the system stays the same, we users will have to pay for the expensive surgeries, and use the basic services for free.

Looking at the whole national debates and legal battles leading up to the Supreme Court decision, and the divided―, and unfavorable if any, ― public opinion regarding Obamacare、I cannot help wondering at American’s world-view regarding a state (a nation state, not one of the fifty States).
A world-view that a state is primarily a market place where commerce is the paramount value, and not a community of men where solidarity and mutual assistance should be its primary concern. I do not know of any case among OECD countries except USA in which a government was sued for unconstitutionality of the universal medical care.

“Construing the commerce clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority,”......just wondering, don't you have Imperative norms in the American legal system? For example laws compelling you to buy vehicle insurance, or to positively act when witnessing a crime...seriously genuinely curious, not being rhetorical or sarcastic.

There are laws in the various states that mandate that you must buy liability insurance on your vehicle and that you must be licensed if you operate your vehicle on the public roads. If you operate the vehicle on your own private property, neither is required. Operation on your own property is not uncommon in large farms and private forestry areas. You misunderstand the requirement. It may be prudent to insure your vehicle that is solely driven on your private property, but it is not required.
Except for certain caregivers, I know of no requirement or law that demands that one report a crime, witnessed or not. It is regarded as a civic obligation.

Thanks. Am a law student and was wondering the specifics in the american legal system between the distinction between prohibitive norms (you will not) and imperative norms (you will)..I imagine that requiring the purchase of insurance (health care) might have been construed under the latter. Then again am first year student :)

There are imperative norms such as registering for the draft, but they seem to be able to pass the "compelling state interest" test rather than the "rational" test. One could conceive of a mandate to have gun ownership that might pass the latter, but not the former at the current point in time. The "rational" test is a bit poorly named. It is basically a test of whether somebody, someplace, might consider it a good idea.

18 USC § 4 - MISPRISION OF FELONY
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

However, that 1909 statue has been viewed by the court as requiring concealment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony The case in question is: http://openjurist.org/546/f2d/1225/united-states-v-johnson Specifically, the finding states that: "5
The factual basis of defendant's plea does not demonstrate the existence of "concealment," an essential element of the offense of misprision. The record of defendant's plea fails to reveal that he took " affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principals." United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119, 1124 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 1366, 28 L.Ed.2d 645 (1971); Neal v. United States, 102 F.2d 643, 649-650 (8th Cir. 1939). The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4. Lancey v. United States,356 F.2d 407 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 922, 87 S.Ct. 234, 17 L.Ed.2d 145 (1966).
"
The opinion is: "The mere failure to report a felony is not sufficient to constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 4." You must take affirmative actions to obstruct justice for this statue to apply to you; in specific, concealment of the crime. A fine line perhaps, but a line non the less.

Two wins in a row should be enough to reverse the prevailent trend of Obama's campaign losing ground to Rommey's. Reps now find consolation in feeling more motivation to overturn the Act for an affordable health care after a decisive victory in november, that according to them will express the will of the people concerning the overgrown government and the soaring fiscal deficit that compromises the safety of coming generations like it never before had happened in the history of the country.
The suspention of deportations of young people under 30 year old had been a blow that shattered the Republican camp that had begun taking steps toward advancing a campaing proposal taking on the issue that before the energic meausure instaurated by the president, is left like a feeble would be not even worht considering before the acomplished fact produced by the presidential order, who benefits from the evidence that he delivers when it comes to keeping up his electoral promises to minorities.
The declarion of constitutionality of the health reform it is said that groups Obama in the select group of presidents that had changed the course of American history, with FD Roosevelt and coming shrot only to Abraham Lincoln.
Reps still hope that the sluggish recovery of the economy that would even become worst by the impact of the crisis in Europe may sink Obama's chance for reelection. Then they would be heading for a triumph in november getting ready to make a case agaist Iran even if takes made up, bogey arguments, to stir national feelings in order to gather a broad suppport.

Of course we should encourage people to work. That said if for example somebody today is out of work and can't find work but needs medical care are you really going have them sit outside the hospital and die? I'm going to assume your answer is no. One possibility is having the hospital treat them poorly and at a loss and then pass the costs onto the rest of us (current laws dictate this). The alternative is to require them to be insured and paying into the system all along so when they show up for care presumably they have been paying into it, which is called Obamacare.

You're right, people should work, unless of course you already have lots of money, in which case you can pay other people to move your money around in a way that increases it.

Quite an equitable system, poor people should be left to die in a ditch because they didn't "earn" what they needed to live, while the rich (especially those who inherited their money) deserve to have everything they could possibly need; and pay extra low taxes as a reward for already having lots of money.

Of course they do. They expect that person to sit quietly outside the ER and wait for death, and to be thankful that we live in a country where they are getting their just desserts for being a poor, unemployed slob. Didn't you hear the crowd at the Ron Paul speech applauding this very ideal?

This idea that a safety net is the equivalent of being handed something for nothing is some of the most egregious bull that has come out of the GOP in recent years. As a society, we function best if all people are guaranteed a certain standard, namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, depending on the item being cited). The Conservative movement here has managed to make these rights seem like a whiny liberal entitlement, and have thus convinced millions of poor and working class Americans to vote against their own self interest. Instead of "Wow, that guy has had some bad breaks, let's try to help him" we are now a country of "Wow, that guy has had some bad breaks, but so have I, and nobody cared about mine, so fuck him". It's sad, and sickening.